Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Requests for comment

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 84 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 81 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Line of Duty#Request for comment: Listing Jed Mercurio in the Infobox as a showrunner

(Initiated 64 days ago on 28 April 2024) Discussion on the actual RfC seems to have slowed. Consensus appeared clear to me, but I was reverted attempting to implement the edits so I'm requesting a formal closure. There is additional information on this topic (overall and about the page in question specifically) at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Alternatives_to_writer_and_director_parameters that I'd request a closer reads over. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 60 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 57 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 57 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 55 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 52 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

(Initiated 31 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	37	0	37
TfD	0	0	1	0	1
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	20	0	20
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk: 2015 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Danny (2015) into 2015 Atlantic hurricane season

(Initiated 157 days ago on 26 January 2024) Discussion ran its course 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 1986 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Newton (1986) into 1986 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 153 days ago on 30 January 2024) Discussion has ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 2009 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Danny (2009) into 2009 Atlantic hurricane season

(Initiated 129 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 1997 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Ignacio (1997) into 1997 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 129 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 2004 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Lester (2004) into 2004 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 129 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion has run its course.166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 2003 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003) into 2003 Atlantic hurricane season

(Initiated 129 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024

(Initiated 58 days ago on 3 May 2024) Contentious issue but I feel like basically all that's going to be said of substance has been said, and it's been plenty of time. I'm also still a bit new to being active again to feel comfortable closing myself, so I just turned my evaluation of what's been said into a !vote. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

update: I've drafted a closure at WP:DfD. I'm travelling so using a phone and cannot do the closure. It'd be good to know if more detail needed or good to go? Tom B (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(Let me know if commenting on this is inappropriate as an involved editor, but...) Okay yeah, after reading your proposed closure, I'm glad I put in this request. Even before becoming formally "involved" I think I would've struggled to remain neutral here 😅 Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 34 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 29 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 26 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (37 out of 7970 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Aleksandar Saša Trajkovski 2024-07-01 01:51 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Star Mississippi Empire of Japan 2024-06-29 23:23 2024-07-29 23:23 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Sir Sputnik File talk:Yes check.svg 2024-06-29 20:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SuperMarioMan Draft:Jaan Say Pyara Juni 2024-06-29 19:03 indefinite move Persistent sock puppetry Ivanvector Template:Onesource 2024-06-29 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2601 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Saraswat Brahmin 2024-06-29 14:55 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Kalki 2898 AD 2024-06-29 14:41 2024-10-11 05:52 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing ToBeFree Talk:Maheshwari Flag 2024-06-29 08:13 2024-07-02 08:13 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Cristiano Ronaldo Jr 2024-06-29 05:41 indefinite edit,move Per AFD discussion Liz S-500 missile system 2024-06-29 00:05 indefinite edit extending protection indefinitely (Arbitration enforcement per CTOPS) Swatjester Karhade Brahmin 2024-06-28 23:49 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Generation Beta 2024-06-28 19:06 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; regular attempts to restore article from redirect Daniel Case Chavda dynasty 2024-06-28 16:41 indefinite edit,move Sock puppetry resumed after previous protection expired Abecedare Chavda (Rajput clan) 2024-06-28 16:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; battling sock armies; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Draft:Ravichandran C 2024-06-28 15:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Ravichandran C 2024-06-28 15:33 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD António Costa 2024-06-28 14:51 2025-06-28 14:51 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Moruf Oseni 2024-06-28 13:26 indefinite edit,move for AfD improvement by established editors Star Mississippi Battle of Tel Hai 2024-06-28 12:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Amana (organization) 2024-06-28 12:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Bağanıs Ayrım 2024-06-28 12:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Stuart Brotman 2024-06-27 21:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: also deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart N. Brotman. Should go through AfC Star Mississippi Puri (surname) 2024-06-27 20:24 indefinite move Persistent disruptive editing CambridgeBayWeather Anfal campaign 2024-06-27 20:04 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Russo-Circassian War 2024-06-27 19:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Ideology of Palestinian Islamic Jihad 2024-06-27 19:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Template:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler 2024-06-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Bania (caste) 2024-06-27 17:24 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/CASTE -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Vikidia 2024-06-27 10:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Filippo Berto 2024-06-27 09:06 2024-12-24 08:42 edit,move upgrade to WP:ECP for the duration El C Bay of Pigs 2024-06-27 08:39 indefinite move Move warring Lectonar Rajputs in Gujarat 2024-06-27 05:12 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Abecedare Agri (caste) 2024-06-27 05:09 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing and sockpuppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Other Backward Class 2024-06-27 05:04 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing and sockpuppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Monashee Spirits 2024-06-27 04:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Robertsky Thakor 2024-06-27 03:14 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; various sock farms; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Thakur (title) 2024-06-27 03:14 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; various sock farms; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare

Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening

Moved from WP:ANI

 – per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE Swarm ♠ 10:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon closed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Pre-nominals and post-nominals just when a better mix of editors began appearing. At User talk:John from Idegon#Pre-nominals and post-nominals I have responded to his given reasons for closing the discussion, received his response, and notified him of this request for administrator assistance to reopen the discussion. Jzsj (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

For background, please read Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Pre-nominal and post-nominal BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this Swarm. I'm unable to respond in detail earlier than midday Tuesday (holiday weekend), but suffice it to say, I stand by my closing rationale. If an administrator wants to revert it, of course I have no objection on procedural grounds as I am WP:INVOLVED. In retrospect, it would have been better to have requested Kudpung or Tedder to shut it down for the procedural issues (misplaced and CANVAS) I cited. Please be aware that when I return Tuesday, I will be seeking WP:BOOMERANG. This foolishness has gone on quite long enough. John from Idegon (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to relist the discussion at WT:MOS or WP:VPP. The discussion was taking place at WT:WPSCH/AG, but involved changes to MOS:POSTNOM. No matter what consensus emerged from the discussion, per WP:CONLIMITED, the editors at WP:WPSCHOOLS cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no justification at MOS for confusing these with honorifics. It's the broad interpretation of the "etc." at Schools Project that introduces confusion and may seem to justify the removal of these religious pre- and post- nominals. Jzsj (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no quibble with what is said at WT:MOS. I repeat here what I placed at User talk:John from Idegon#Challenge to your closure of discussion on religious pre- and post-nominals:

I disagree with both of your reasons given for closure. As to 1), as stated in my comments in that discussion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Infobox contents has gone beyond anything mentioned at MOS. As to 2), I'll let an administrator decide whether placing a neutral alert at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism to widen the input is canvassing. Please reopen this discussion or I will challenge the closure. @John from Idegon: Jzsj (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

My contention is that the ambiguity of the Schools Project guideline on pre- and post-nominals ("CEO, Dr, BA, BSc, MA, PhD, etc.") allows editors to remove religious ones like "Fr.", "Sr.", Br.", "SJ", "SNDdeN", "OSB", though these are used in hundreds of school article infoboxes. An example of editors' removing these is at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Pre-nominal and post-nominal... a discussion which someone hid there, suggesting that it be brought up in a larger forum. Then when I brought it up at Schools Project Talk it was closed, for two reasons neither of which is valid. Please reopen the discussion there. This is about removing the ambiguity in the Schools Project Guideline which I am saying needs to be removed (the "etc."). Jzsj (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And this is what all the editors working on NDCRHS have been dealing with for the last 6 weeks. I'm pretty tired of the Father's WP:ASPERSIONS being directed a Wikiproject that I happen to be a coordinator of (pretty much, as I'm sure you all know, a meaningless title). There are 5 editor's completely opposing him at that article and one mostly opposing him. Only 3 of those editors are members of WP:WPSCH. He's clearly made the Wikiproject the demon in this, and using that to justify his tendentious editing and discussion. I'm at a loss for how to process here. 3O is obviously not an option. I cannot see how mediation could be helpful. The only options left are a bit nuclear. I'll be back in a couple hours with diffs, and I'm asking minimally for a topic ban on the particular school article. I just am at a loss here. The last thing I want to be doing is dragging a priest into "Wikicourt", but more reasonable options are not presenting themselves.

This is the link to the canvassing post I referenced in the disputed close (also note the one immediately above it). The Father has already linked the discussion at the article talk which generated his discussion at WT:WPSCH. Please note that no one even suggested they were opposing his position based on school article guidelines and indeed it was suggested, just as I suggested in my contested closing at WPSCH, that he take it up at MOS. A read of the talk page (if you can do so and keep your sanity) will clearly illustrate my, and all the other, editors there, cause of frustration with Jzsj. If y'all wanna take a crack at reading that mishmash good luck. I'll be bringing diffs showing clearly the OP's COI here. It's really questionable whether he can edit any article regarding Catholicism neutrally, and I'll have diffs for that too. Y'all gotta do something. Block him block me but I'm tired of spending an hour a day beating my head against the wall over an article about a tiny little school that is low importance to every project watching it and that averages less than 10 page views a month. John from Idegon (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note that there are seven simple proposals at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#History on which a few have been constantly obstructing my efforts. Others have supported my efforts but have been shouted down. Please check my seven proposals recounted near the end of this History section, and my compromise proposal for some of these issues near the end. Also, please read my explanation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Pre-nominals and post-nominals in contrast to what John presents here. Jzsj (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I was in charge of English at one time for a group of 47 Catholic high schools in an archdiocese and also lectured linguistics in a Major Seminary. Without any relevance to my own religeous leanings (if indeed I have any), I have the highest respect for the Society of Jesus and it puts me on the fence when having to discuss our guidelines with one of their members. I would appeal to Jzsj to understand the difference between being 'shouted down' and a community consensus in which he is misiterpreting - in good faith - the way we work on Wikipedia. And as John so often says, the project coordinators at WP:WPSCH are only janitors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't refer to myself as a priest and I don't see it as relevant to this discussion. Note that the whole discussion at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#History became alarming to me when early in the first section religious pre- and post-nominals were referred to as "alphabet soup" and likened to "crap", though they are used in hundreds of school infoboxes. My use of "shout down" here is an accurate description of the difference between my keeping my cool through all this while some others have made all sorts of threats.

If you are going to keep the "etc." at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#infobox contents, which goes beyond the Wikipedia official guidelines, then I suggest that you mention there that religious pre- and post-nominals are not honorifics. @Kudpung: Jzsj (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We really need to get some guidelines clearly established in this area! When in an infobox I linked the "Fr." and "SJ" in Fr. Joseph Parkes, SJ, my links were removed, though I thought I was introducing an improvement − at here. The editor has no talk page so I could not ask about it. Can anyone explain? (The refs were the usual WP:CREDENTIAL & WP:POSTNOM which leave questions like ours unanswered.) Jzsj (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Does anyone object to opening a new RFC at WP:PROPS and continuing this discussion? I doubt there is a community consensus to change WP:POSTNOM, but, as jzsj points out, the current wording does not directly address religious orders. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

WT:MOS or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies would seem more appropriate. 32.218.46.19 (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Since Jzsj’s proposal concerns non-biography articles, I feel WT:MOS is more appropriate than WT:MOSBIO. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

MOS:BIO states "While this guideline focuses on biographies, its advice pertains, where applicable, to all articles that mention people." (emphasis mine) In any case, this is really a style issue; WT:MOS would be fine. 32.218.34.240 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to forgo any request of BOOMERANG here in favor of posting a full report and request for sanctions in a few days. I repeat, I have no objection to an administrator reopening the discussion on my procedural error of involved close. However, it appears to me that there is a fair consensus that at least part of my rationale, wrong place, was correct. I await my serving of trout. John from Idegon (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jzsj: I think we have a consensus to reopen your RFC at WT:MOS. If you do reopen it, could you

• Read the 2008 discussion about a similar issue?
• Notify WT:WPSCHOOLS and Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School, as well as any other venues you previously notified. It would be best if you could list every notice you placed in a comment to the RFC.

If the RFC is relisted, I agree with the above editors and support closing this thread. If John or Jzsj feel further administrator intervention is needed due to broader editor conduct issues, they can go to WP:AIN. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I remain convinced that we need to reopen that discussion, and if someone claims that the question I've raised is settled elsewhere, please let them quote the words that settle it and not just the name of a page. I've read the 2008 page and I suggest that the honorifics talk may be "similar" but came to no conclusion about the issue at hand. Note that being a "father" or member of a religious congregation (OSB, OFM, SND) places you in a position of obedience to a bishop or religious superior for life: mere honorifics don't do this. We can argue over whether "Rev." is an honorific like "His Excellency", but if we could just clear the "Fr.", "Sr.", "Bro." ones and the post-nominals for religious congregations it would handle the infobox question raised here. Jzsj (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SNOW, I doubt any admin will reopen the original RFC since it was in the incorrect venue for such a change. This thread is reserved for meta discussion of the RFC close, not for rehashing the argument from the RFC.

Many editors may disagree with your proposed style changes, but you are making reasonable arguments in good faith. Let’s open a new RFC at WT:MOS and have a full discussion about your proposal. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The placement at Schools Project was to get rid of the "etc." added there. If policy/guidelines were clarified elsewhere, would the Schools Project still have an "etc." that seems to override that policy/guideline? The importance of the guideline to schools is that the pre- and post-nominals in infoboxes succinctly indicate the extent of control that a diocese or religious congregation has over the school. Jzsj (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The importance of the guideline to schools is that the pre- and post-nominals in infoboxes succinctly indicate the extent of control that a diocese or religious congregation has over the school. No, that would be the job of reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school, not of tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. --Calton | Talk 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

By "extent" I don't mean here a full assessment of the extent, but the common sense understanding that when a bishop or religious superior places an administrator at a school it is to fulfill the vision of the diocese or the religious congregation. I would also borrow here from one of the few "new eyes" that found our NDCRHS discussion, at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Postnominals: "My reading of MOS:POSTNUM is that in this case it clearly supports post-nominals in the infobox. It says "should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization. (a) This order of nuns is over 200 years old and has a presence in 20 countries on 5 continents. I think an argument can be made that this order is "widely recognizable." (b) Furthermore, this is a Roman Catholic order, and the Roman Catholic Church is widely recognized. According to MOS:LEADELEMENTS the infobox is an element of the lead. In conclusion, since either the order or the Catholic Church are widely recognizable, and since the infobox is part of the lead, the Sisters postnominals should be restored to the infobox." – Lionelt 22:21, 21 February 2018 @Lionelt: Jzsj (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean here a full assessment of the extent, but the common sense understanding that when a bishop or religious superior places an administrator at a school it is to fulfill the vision of the diocese or the religious congregation.

In other (long, convoluted) words, exactly what I said: tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. This aint' L'Osservatore Romano, this is a general-purpose encyclopedia with a specific, very hard rule about sourcing. In this case (again), reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Most unrealistic! This is hardly ever explicitly stated, much less in the media. It also flies in the face of the usage on hundreds of article websites. It's this attempt to turn around common usage in Wikipedia, that shows the common understanding of guidelines, that has alarmed me from the start. Jzsj (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This is hardly ever explicitly stated, much less in the media.

1) "The media" -- whatever that is supposed to mean here -- is not the only reliable source acceptable on Wikipedia; far from it.

2) If it's not explicitly stated, then how important could it be?

3) Common use? Common understanding?

a)

b) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.

--Calton | Talk 00:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and you may wish to look up "common sense", since you're not using the term correctly here. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The current practice in hundreds of articles would seem to me to reflect "common sense". Jzsj (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Your (usual) evasive reply would seem to me to reflect WP:IDHT. Try reading all three lines of point number 3. And, again, THIS PLACE IS NOT FOR CONTENT DISPUTES, no matter what canvassing you do. --Calton | Talk 14:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

So, someone served me up with trout, it sure doesn't look like anyone is going to do anything about re-opening the discussion in question so how about some admin type closing this down? Since someone doesn't understand that this isn't the place to discuss the subject of the discussion in question, nothing good is going to come from continuing this. John from Idegon (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on biography

There is a malicious sockpuppet who keeps trying to add negative tabloid journalism onto Nam Joo-hyuk's page.

Here is the sockpuppet removing references and adding negative BLP material: [1] After it was blocked, it keeps on returning as IP address to vandalise the page: [2][3]. Looking at the page's history, there has been long-term vandalism of the page by the sockpuppet dating back to last year: [4] by various socks of the same user. Is there a way to protect the page from vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.203.211 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, so I've forwarded it to the correct place to handle these requests - Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It's been protected in such a way that for the next 3 months, the only users who can edit it are those whose accounts are over 30 days old and have over 500 edits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Help the Anti-Harassment Tools team pick 2 Blocking tools to build

Hello everybody! Reminder that the discussion to select the improvements to the blocking tools is going on. Over the past weeks the Community health initiative team took a look at at all 58 suggestions that came out of the discussion about making improvements to blocking tools. Now join the discussion to select 2 to build from the shortlist. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Samee - Automated tool use

I started a section on Samee's talk page after watching them dump over 119k worth of "rescue" deal url code in the Trump article. I have to be honest, I'm not sure where policy is on his other edits. He uses this IAbot and AWB a lot, and a lot of the edits seem very minor indeed. I'm not sure we should be rescuing articles with no dead links, for instance. I'm not trying to get him in trouble, I just need other admin who are more familiar with our policies on automated editing to take a look, and if need be, give him some guidance. He acknowledges the edit was a mistake, but some oversight and maybe guidance might be needed. I've told him I'm going to post here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

While I agree a full page "rescue" on a page that large probably should be done sparingly. Creating the archives themselves has advantages as some page may never get archived unless you ask Wayback to do so, and may die to linkrot without ever being archived. A lot of the sources, especially with the major news sites are going to get archived on their own anyways, but some pages had their first archive created with that bot edit. The "rescue" that was done, basically was more a "preserve", which could have been done without any changes in Wikipedia. It isn't really necessary to actually add the archive into the article, but if the bot could be configured to just tell Wayback to archive the source, and not actually add it into the article, it would be ready for a real rescue when needed. Him running the bot and you reverting it did basically that, but a one step approach that doesn't disturb the page would be way more beneficial. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone else actually reverted him. My concern here is how policy falls on this. Where is the line in the sand? That's why I'm asking other admin with experience in enforcement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiVirusC I’d be cautious next time while ‘rescuing’ the links and won’t add archive links to the articles for working links.

Regarding AWB edits, though they are minor but these minor linguistic changes such as 1 2 3 4, 5, and 6 etc. are important for a professional encyclopaedia. I make these changes in a good faith particularly for readers.  samee  ^talk 01:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

And to be clear, I'm not trying to get any sanctions on you, I absolutely believe you are editing in good faith, it just seems some of these are borderline and I'm asking for guidance from my fellow admin, not sanctions. If they are out of policy, my goal would be to assist you, not punish you. The Trump article edit really caught my eye and I just need some guidance of my own here. This is why I went to WP:AN and not WP:ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean that way. In fact, I am thankful to you and Muboshgu for pointing towards the edit at Donald Trump. I didn't realise the size of the edit and the resultant load on the article [before Muboshgu's revert].  samee  ^talk 02:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I remember that there was a discussion/concern on such mass archivals on some other page - I think MelanieN was involved she (?) might remember where it was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Samee: You need to make sure the "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" is unchecked when using the IABot Management Interface, especially for larger pages. Nihlus 09:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll. Thanks!  samee  ^talk 13:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. Yes, I raised this issue at the Village Pump last October. Personally I really dislike these archive-everything edits, which can increase the size of an article by 25% or more. I would prefer that people only archive the dead links, not the live ones. And that is the default action of the bot: to archive only the dead links. But not everyone agrees with me, and I haven't seen any consensus develop in the subsequent discussions of the same issue. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a prime case of why it isn't a good idea to "rescue" things that don't need rescuing. Obviously I can't fault Samee, he didn't violate a policy, but his almost 120k addition to Trump is exactly why this is a bad idea, and if it is a bad idea for one article, it would seem a bad idea for all, as (as MelanieN notes) it adds 25% or more to the article size, making a lot of articles harder to access (and more expensive to access) on mobile devices. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Panel requested for a discussion closure

Discussion closed. Message me, Primefac, and/or TonyBallioni if anyone has any questions. SkyWarrior 19:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know I already posted this at WP:ANRFC, but I think posting it here as well would give it more eyes (plus this is more of a request to get volunteers together to help close than to actually close it right then and there).

Anyways, the discussion at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown needs closing, and a panel of at least three uninvolved editors is recommended since the discussion is rather contentious. Initially, we had me, Winged Blades of Godric, Ammarpad, and Primefac; WBoG and Ammparad later recused and Primefac said he wouldn't be needed in the decision-making process (though that may've changed given WBoG's recent recusal).

Since I am the only one left and I absolutely cannot close the discussion alone, I am asking for at least two uninvolved volunteers, preferably admins, who are willing to help out. And sorry if this seems like canvassing; that was not my intention. SkyWarrior 15:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If no one signs up, I can take a look. --Izno (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm experienced with closing RMs, and would be fine dealing with it. If it is to be a panel, I'd prefer another experienced RM closer as the process there is typically a lot more nuanced than in other discussion venues. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine, TonyBallioni, twist me feckin' arm... Primefac (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope others will notice anyway that I've raised this at the RM, but just to save time I'll also point out here that a close might currently be premature, and that a panel might be neither needed nor advisable. But we'll certainly need at least one uninvolved admin to close... again in my opinion. And many of the RM regulars (self included) are involved. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternate Account

As I create an account named MustafaAliIsAPakistaniWrestler for the reason given at user page, simply I need to know that is it permissible to create alternate account? Second, I need to know about this alternative account I've created that:

• Does it resulting any violation of Username policy?

• Are these added tags and userboxes ok or I have to remove them?

• Will it result in losing any editing privileges?

Thank You. CK (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• WP:Sock puppetry (and WP:SOCKHELP to a lesser degree) have the how tos. You need to link them on each account page. Generally, it isn't a problem to have two accounts as long as you never edit at the same time on the same article using the two accounts. That makes it look like two people are doing so. The key is insuring you never use them to make it look like you are two different people. If you commented or voted at AFD using BOTH accounts, for instance, you would be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To be honest, I really don't see how you would be using that alt. account. You mentioned that you want to stop edit wars at Pakistani-related BLP topics. Why couldn't you do that with your main account? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I really don't see anything in WP:VALIDALT that could be applied here. byteflush _Talk 19:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed this makes no sense, and also you can’t use the name of a real, well-known person in your username, so I’ve blocked that account. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

After loking around a bit I feel compelled to formally ask @Broken nutshell: to voluntarily restrict themselves to one account as they do not seem to have a solid grasp of what is and is not a legitimate use of alternate accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: @Beeblebrox: I agree with you that you have blocked my alternative account and I got it because of Naming violations. No matter about this. Pakistani related BLPs are especially for those articles that related to OVERSEAS PAKISTANI who were born to a Pakistani Family but outside Pakistan, recent edit warring was occured in mid February at Mustafa Ali (wrestler) that he is Indian, Declaring Pakistani person as Indian appears to be incorrect as I've warned 2 IP editors for this thing, You're right at your blocking reason, as I've already appealed protection raise for that Mustafa Ali article.

RE: @Byteflush: You say "Someone Correct Me", I can understand everyone's message as you don't needed to be worry about it I clearly got your message too. By the way, Thanks for helping, at least I got what is right or wrong here.

CK (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Broken nutshell: You don’t actually seem to have answered my question above, so I’m going to ask again: Will you agree to limit yourself to one account? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: @Beeblebrox: Yes I agree and from now I've decided to keep myself in one account. CK (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Good. Thank You. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Block required

Please block Tran9644 (talk · contribs) and revert all edits immediately. They are a WP:DUCK sock of Jack Gaines (talk · contribs)/SuperPassword (talk · contribs), repeatedly changing song genres to "bro-country" and vandalizing articles related to Alan Jackson. I would also propose some kind of edit filter to stop their edits, because I had to deal with one of their socks just yesterday and don't wanna keep playing whack-a-mole every time they show up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like they are blocked and none of their edits is the current revision. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible hateful/vitriolic content in userspace?

Resolved

So I found this very old sandbox from 2013 that contains some very hateful content in it. Should it be nuked? The user is indef'd anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just gone and blanked it. Leaving it to the admin corps to decide whether it is worth deleting. Or it could go to MFD. Blackmane (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

...And I lost my innocence. If I were an admin, I'd delete it. But that's just me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMitochondriaBoi (talk • contribs) 01:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's run of the mill idiocy. But it's also a copyvio so nuked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Off wiki harassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tran9644 (talk · contribs)/EbenezerStooge1 (talk · contribs)/SuperPassword (talk · contribs)/Jack Gaines (talk · contribs). This user has repeatedly been blocked for creating a myriad of socks to vandalize Alan Jackson-related articles. Today, the user has been repeatedly harassing me on Twitter, admitting that they made up some of the stuff they added, but also insistent that some of their vandalism is "correct" (i.e., claiming that a 50-something country singer is covering Wiz Khalifa and Lil Wayne in concert). Said user has been spamming me on twitter with name-calling, memes, and general harassment (their Twitter is here). Their edits on Wikipedia are easily discernible by use of edit summaries such as "Look at the lyrics" and "#AlanJacksonKilledCountry", while also using as a "source" a setlist.fm page that was clearly vandalized by them.

Is there a way that this user can be formally banned, and have some of their "tricks" added to the edit filter? I've had to revert and report two of their socks in the past 24 hours, but the Twitter harassment is crossing the line. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're being harassed, report the account to Twitter and have it disabled. Tamara787 (talk · contribs) certainly qualifies for a site ban, but it won't accomplish anything. There is no difference between an editor who is site banned and an editor that no admin will unblock. And no admin can unblock Tamara787 – the account is globally locked. It is literally impossible for an English Wikipedia administrator to unblock this sockmaster; only a steward can do that. As far as an edit filter, you should file a request at WP:EFR. Someone there will tell you if it's possible. If you spot new sock puppets, file a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tamara787. I have that watchlisted and will take care of any sock puppets that are reported. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters is likely to completely remove any perceived need to request a cban of an editor who socks more than once after an indefinite block. (Probably irrelevant here due to the global locking anyway. Although in some cases it's up to us if we want allow an editor who was globally locked to have another account. A publicly compromised password is an obvious example of that.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Should any attempt be made to try and contact Alan Jackson's representatives? A lot of the content being spread by this sock is hateful and could be damaging in the wrong hands. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If you have a short list of articles, and this is an ongoing problem, putting EC30/500 protection on them may help as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My name is Roman Spinner. I am 69 years old and have been editing Wikipedia on a nearly-daily basis for over 12 years (first edit: January 22, 2006). Here in Commons, is a photo of me. Two years ago, in February 2016, I was banned from editing disambiguation pages and talk pages of disambiguation pages for creating overlong disambiguation page entries. Along with my unbanning request is a quoted excerpt from the February 2016 ANI discussion:
"Are you going to stop editing dab pages in this way? Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course, I will stop. Judging by the comments, I am on the losing side of this argument. As I wrote near the end of my April 2014 lengthy reply to your posting, "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect. All my future entries will be pared to the bone -- vital dates/defining date, nationality and profession/function/venue. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)"
As a closing note, I will add that the content of my above reply from February 2016 continues to be valid today. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I took the liberty to change the title, as this is an appeal for the topic ban. I've read through the previous AN/I discussion, and I am leaning toward support lifting the topic ban pending response from the main parties in the previous discussion: Jwy, Boleyn, Ubcule and Swpb (Midas02 is not active in the past two years). Alex Shih (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Roman Spinner: how would you disambiguate Abraham Lincoln if he appeared in a disambiguation page? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I would follow an existing example at any US president dab page, such as Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) and copy the form already there: "Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) was the 16th President of the United States." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would be fine lifting the ban on a trial basis and seeing how Roman gets on. If he starts breaching WP:MOSDAB again the topic ban can always be reinstated, but I hope that's not the case as his intentions were good and he seems to have taken the criticism of his prolixity on board. Roman, the example at Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) is actually a really good one for you to refer back to if you're not sure how much to add. As is JFK (disambiguation). Fish+Karate 09:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• I spent so many hours on correcting these and trying to communicate with Roman, I feel weary at the idea of the lifting of the ban. However, it has been a long time and if Roman is now genuinely willing to follow the guidelines, I see no reason not to give this otherwise productive editor the chance to do so. Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the topic ban. Given the level of willful disregard of dozens of warnings and the blatant disdain for consensus that led to this ban in the first place, and the various attempts to skirt the ban since it was imposed, I do not believe Roman Spinner has demonstrated an ability to be trusted even an inch when it comes to disambiguation pages. Before I'd consider letting RS edit dabs again, I would need to see from him:

1. A frank assessment of the damage he caused, with no hedging whatsoever
2. An explanation in his own words of why each of the MOS:DAB guidelines he flaunted exist
3. An explanation of what consensus means on Wikipedia, and what led him to believe he could ignore it

Until then, we have plenty of trustworthy editors who work on dabs without wasting dozens of hours of the community's time trying in vain to convince them to follow the rules. I have tremendous respect for Boleyn, but I don't share her generosity in this case – all sweet talking by RS aside, the risk of lifting this ban currently outweighs any potential benefit to be had. —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• A thorough read of "skirt the ban" shows there was one attempt to "skirt the ban", and it was more of an error than anything else. And risk? What risk? There is no risk whatsoever in assuming good faith and giving someone a second chance. Fish+Karate 15:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The risk that we'll all be right back here soon. I have better things to do than participate in a fourth or fifth ANI for the same user. —swpb^{T go beyond} 16:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:LASTCHANCE - it's been two years, and while I appreciate the disruption caused in the past it was in good faith, and RS seems to recognize that his past disambiguation editing was against standards and against consensus. I expect an editor of 12 years' tenure to be able to respect consensus from here on out. I also expect he knows that if he does not then a reinstatement of the topic ban will be swift and may draw additional sanctions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. If the problems return, so too can the topic ban. --Jayron32 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, with the understanding that @Roman Spinner: should expect their edits to be watched closely. As others note, future disregard for policies will likely result in a more permanent sanction of some sort. BUT, on the other hand, if they're willing to edit within the scope of policy, then they should be allowed to do so. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Qualified Support per above with the caveat that any uninvolved admin should have the discretion to reimpose the TBAN if it looks like a pattern of disruptive editing is returning. No need for another trip to the drama boards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose; My response on seeing this was the same weariness Boleyn notes. However, I disagree that the ban should be lifted; there's no clear sign that the underlying issues that led to the ban have changed. (Let me make clear that while the following comments may sound harsh, they relate specifically to Roman's dab edits, and not the rest of his contributions to WP, which I assume are largely positive and am not aware of a problem with):-

• The ban was not an abrupt response to recent behaviour- quite the opposite. Roman was first notified eight years- eight years!- before the ban and on numerous occasions following that that his edits were contrary to our agreed consensus on dab page style. He was clearly intelligent enough and capable of understanding MOSDAB (even if he disagreed with it personally) but continued to ignore it for years in favour of imposing his own style on dab pages. In other words, he had no problem happily disregarding consensus opinion- for years- as long as he wasn't being called out on it.
• @Ivanvector:- "I expect an editor of 12 years' tenure to be able to respect consensus from here on out". With respect, I entirely disagree- if someone has been on WP even half that long and still fails to respect consensus on a given topic (despite it having been brought to their attention repeatedly) until basically forced to, it's pretty damning.
• Roman's self-quote in green highlights his self-appointed martyrdom- "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" This despite the fact it had *already* been pointed out on numerous occasions that these edits were not what dab pages were for. It's all very passive-aggressive- you already *knew* that this wasn't the agreed function of dab pages. If you wasted your own time and effort- for whatever reason- it's because you *chose* to do so.
• Roman nominally acknowledges that the weight of opinion is against him. ("I am on the losing side of this argument. [..] Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect)"). This still smacks of martyrdom and passive-aggressiveness; he's acknowledges that he's on the losing side, but not *why* the majority disagree with him. He's entitled to think his version is "right", but given that this previously seemed to be the driving force behind the disregard of the agreed consensus that led to the ban- and given that there's no sign this attitude has changed- I'm not hopeful.
• The fundamental problem is that- like swpb- I see absolutely no indication that Roman has changed in his attitude towards dab pages- that they should be fact-filled mini-articles (contrary to their agreed purpose). The arguable flouting of that ban mentioned above just reinforces this suspicion more strongly.
• If the ban is lifted, I strongly suspect we'll see attempts to stay within the rules- but not the spirit of the rules- while pushing towards what Roman possibly still thinks in his heart a dab page should look like (i.e. not WP:MOSDAB!) I'd expect adherence to MOSDAB to loosen as time goes on, he's less "on parole" and his dab edits being are scrutinised less tightly. This will lead to further tedious discussion, excessively verbose rationalisations and we'll be back here again. Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support It has been long enough. And since the TBAN was not set to infinity, it was only enacted so as to help him to disengage for a while from that area and have reflection on the kind of edit he did in the past that led to the ban. We should now give him another chance. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - "I am 69 years old" is enough for me to support this topic ban appeal, (Although age shouldn't be a factor I see it as "They're old enough and wise enough"), As noted above the TBAN wasn't set to indef and as they've obviously not edited disams since I think's fair they're given another chance, Everyone deserves a second chance so easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 22:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Davey2010 above. Let's temper justice with mercy. Miniapolis 23:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support I'm sure somebody could find something to complain about in this user's move log (and most of their contributions in the past month are move-related), but I don't see any reason to keep a prohibition on editing DABs. Separately, the "contribution" link in Roman Spinner's signature appears to be broken. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It sounds like he's willing to follow consensus, even if maybe he doesn't agree with it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral. (piping in only because I was pinged above) - As I mentioned at some point, I don't DAB as much as I used to. The "Qualified Support" comment above probably comes closest to my opinion. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That whole thing about edit summaries

So as some of us have discovered (unfortunately) WMF have raised the cap on edit summaries from 250 to 1000 characters. The reason doesn't matter much, I suppose (Something something something non-English wikis something something bollocks), but the issue is we end up with copy/paste edit summaries like Special:Diff/828335644. There's already a VPR thread here regarding the issue, but until that is resolved, I am wondering about what we should do about these incredibly unnecessarily long edit summaries.

Now for the record, I am perfectly fine with edit summaries like this, as it's a bit long but it also explains the edit. I'm thinking threads like the first example or this, wherein the editor is simply copy/pasting their entire message into the edit summary. They just clutter up the edit history and don't give a summary of the edit.

If the answer is "nothing" then that's fine, I'm just looking to start a discussion about the administrative side of things. Is it worth performing a revdel on an edit summary that does absolutely nothing more than quote the edit itself? I've had a half-dozen people on IRC complain to me that they consider it to be "disruptive" (which would fall somewhat under the RD3 umbrella but not really). Do we just suffer through and ask nicely for those people to stop copy/pasting their text into the edit summary? Primefac (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• And to reiterate/TLDR, I'm mostly wondering if this is an "ask people nicely to stop" situation or if we even can/should escalate to revdel should they continue with massively long/unnecessary edit summaries. Primefac (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I should also mention that both of the editors connected to the copy/paste edit summaries linked above know about the issue and have said they'll be making an effort to avoid it in the future. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This is purely disruptive in my book (for disclosure sake I was the one that started the VPP thread to get it removed). The edit summary box is for, well, a summary. It is not the place to copy and paste your entire edit. If I wanted to know your entire edit I would look at the diff. All the extended edit summaries are doing is destroying page histories and watchlists. "+" would be better than an entire copy/paste like that. I'm all for calling these purely disruptive and treating them like all other purely disruptive things. RD3'ing them. --Majora (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• People should stop pasting the contents of their changes into the edit summary field. It irks me out. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• WP:RevDel says "Revision deletion should only be used in accordance with the criteria for redaction." RD3 is defined as "allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose, but not mere spam links." Edit summaries that pertain to Wikipedia clearly do not qualify for this criteria. It's like deleting a page as CSD A7 because you know it'd never pass AfD. Let's not stretch deletion criteria because our actions cannot be reviewed by unprivileged users. The key is Purely disruptive - not just disruptive. That's implies intent.--v/r - TP 02:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Well the irony did make me chuckle at first glance. Bad habits sure are hard to break, aren't they? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm just going to make small diffs from now on.--v/r - TP 02:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• I don't concur, as to the idea of RevDel.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• No comment on the edit summary change, but revdel would be entirely unwarranted and out of process here. ansh666 04:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Regardless of revdel, it does seem like an area worth watching as it may be more enticing to use edit summaries for vandalism. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think revdel should be used for good faith edit summaries, and I'd prefer some of the technical solutions which are being proposed. I've already seen vandals who would love to exploit this, exploit this for the sake of disruption. To me these remain as good as ever for RD3. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• This is probably an amazingly stupid question, but is there any reason we cannot get the WMF to let Wiki's set the edit-sum char limit locally as part of their own management? Why *is* the WMF deciding how long we want our edit summaries to be on ENWP? I understand due to different languages and charsets one-size-fits-all may not be appropriate, but if you need to take more than 300 characters in English its not a summary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Block for review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sandstein (talk · contribs) has blocked MapSGV (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a normal admin action for personal attacks after acting on a spurious report filed by a suspected wikihounding sock puppet of a topic ban evading editor[5][6] that is quacking loud, but still causing much disruption by taking wrong advantage of slow SPI processes and trying to get rid of the user he wikihounds as soon as its possible.

Reportedly, as per the SPI, reporting editor was disruptively wikihounding MapSGV[7] because MapSGV was working on an article that has been considerably disrupted by the sockmaster of this suspected sock.[8]

Under such evidenced harassment, what really made Sandstein act on a such a deceptive and one-sided report?

I had already described the fallacy of this report on ARE. A good judgement would be if Sandstein had treated the deceptive report as spurious and/or blocked the filer as a WP:DUCK sock. While the block is not ARE related, his comments on ARE are problematic,[9] where he is claiming that those who have low edit count(223) but if they are aware of Wikipedia policies then it is alright to falsely accuse them of being a sock, despite the user in question was editing and was notified of all policies since 2014. Bringing up edit count is also doesn't matter per WP:COUNTITIS.

Why Sandstein didn't sanctioned the offending users for their incompetence, personal attacks[10][11][12][13] and article disruption but singled out MapSGV who made fair criticism of incompetence that prevailed around him? The reported diffs were nothing but responses to personal attacks made on him and none of his statements constituted even a single "personal attack" let alone "attempting to harass" users as Sandstein claims. Sandstein went a step ahead with his misjudgment when he said that MapSGV should be topic banned if unblocked, but we really don't sanction competent editors for safeguarding disruptive incompetent editors.

It seems that civil POV pushing is indeed crossing the heights that you would get blocked even if you are criticizing misrepresentation of sources, disruptive POV pushing, having false allegations of socking and other facing other sorts of disruption from others including socks. Are we actually encouraging such deceptive civil POV pushing and that competent editors should be blocked only because they have been falsely accused of incivility, while they are responding to false accusations by incompetent editors and socks?

For all these reasons I find this block to be a bad block and support unblock. I posted this block review since I had commented on the original report and MapSGV himself requested for an ANI review. Lorstaking (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn clearly a horrible block. Lack of evidence of personal attacks, and I see nothing but only logical responses from MapSGV to those who are engaging in WP:IDHT, WP:DE and WP:NPA. The suspected sock (Elektricity) had also wikihounded my contributions and then filed a malicious report ANI against me[14] which was never taken seriously by others. But I wonder now, maybe Sandstein would've indeffed me because I was being targeted by a Wikihounding disruptive editor who is trying to be a Civil POV pusher. Sandstein will you overturn the block already? Raymond3023 (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• <ec>I've just come from MapSGV's talk page, where I've asked Sandstein to reconsider the duration of the block. Indef seems too long, even if the block reasons were valid. However, I feel MapSGV was more likely the harrassee than the harrasser, and that the matter needs fuller discussion.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

But he was being wikihounding and the harasser was just engaging in disruptive editing and is likely to be blocked for socking for topic ban evasion. How could Sandstein trust on his deceptive report without looking at reply of everyone else? GoldenRing also assumed that SPI needs to be resolved first.[15] Lorstaking (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural decline unblockThis should be handled by discussion with Sandstein, and we should close this thread until he has the opportunity to discuss it with the blocked user. There is absolutely no reason for this to be brought to AN by a user other than the one who has been blocked when a standard unblock appeal is pending and Sandstein hasn't even had the opportunity to respond. Turning this into a tempest when it can be handled through the normal channels is not good for Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: WP:AN was suggested by NeilN,[16] if no agreement has been reached on MapSGv's talk page then we can just reopen this thread. Do you agree? Lorstaking (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: to me it looks like NeilN made a procedural note. He did not suggest you bring it here. Also, I'd prefer this go through the regular unblock template process. There is nothing extraordinary about this to make it require a review at AN, and I think it is awfully unfair to Sandstein for someone who isn't even blocked to be questioning his actions without so much as talking to him. Taking a block review to AN while a unblock template is still pending is highly irregular, and we normally don't review simple admin blocks here. There is no reason to suspect that the normal unblock process will not work in this case, and I'd prefer it be handled that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to update an incorrect image file

Hi. This file is an incorrect, unofficial logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:V8_JavaScript_engine_logo_2.svg A copy of the correct, official one is here: https://github.com/alrra/browser-logos/blob/master/src/v8/v8.svg

Unfortunately it seems the file can only be updated by administrators. Can an admin please take care of this?

Thanks!

Mathias, V8 (Google)

Mathiasbynens (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, @Mathisbynens:. You need to try to upload it on commons:File:V8 JavaScript engine logo 2.svg rather than here - the file is on a sister project called Wikimedia Commons and when it is there it should be changed there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mathiasbynens: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And the Edit-War of the Month Award goes to ...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[17]. They've both breached 20RR (sic), and 4TheWynne, who knows better, has neither reported the user nor engaged in article-talk discussion (nor even remotely explained his reversions). Could someone put an end to this nonsense? Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: John Jason Barrett has been blocked by Ferret as NOTHERE. So we can all relax and enjoy the Oscars (in a few days), for some more interesting Awards. Softlavender (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, actually, I did – this is an obvious sock, and I've tried to explain this anywhere that I can. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Vixion – it just took ages for someone to actually see it. As for the humour, I'm really not in the mood. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of blocked users are exemptions from 3RR, and the other user is blocked (although not for SP), so I'd say wait for the SPI to conclude and then come back to this. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I sent the AIV report to SPI. I'm not familiar with the user and it gave us nothing to go off of. SPI is better suited for reports as it will likely have admins who are familiar with the user watching the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Our most prolific article creator is (or was) a copyright violator...

We'll need to discuss how to handle this best. It turns out that User:Dr. Blofeld, who is with 96,000 articles created our most prolific article creator, has in a number of cases (so far early in his career, more research is needed) created blatant copyright violations. We can start a CCI, but these take years and the scale of what needs to be checked is huge in this case. User talk:Dr. Blofeld#Copyright problem: Olavi Paavolainen shows the initial concern, raised by User:Orland, and further research confirming clear copyvios from multiple sources in multiple articles. His many, many geography stubs are probably allright, but I fear that e.g. his many film articles have used copyrighted plot summaries. Fram (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if there's anything problematic about his more recent creations. Partly because he's been involved in so many disputes, he's been under something of a microscope for years, and I'd think it unlikely that someone wouldn't have spotted a problem if there had been any issues recently. (The 96,000 figure is a little misleading, as the geography stubs are mostly just "Foo is a village in Bar" database scrapes; doing a very quick dip-sample, a lot of the film articles also seem to be microstubs like this.) I'd suggest giving it a couple of days for him to answer—even if he's retired, I'm sure someone can get hold of him and ask him—as despite my many disagreements with him over the years, I've no doubt he's editing in good faith, and he may well put his hands up and say "yes, I used to do cut-and-pastes but I stopped doing it once I understood it was a problem". If it's only his early edits that are problematic, it will be a lot easier to handle; likewise, any investigation will be far easier if he's onside and can explain where he feels the problems are, as opposed to feeling persecuted and refusing to cooperate. I certainly don't intend to nuke his contributions, since wiping the history of something like Paris or Thimphu would be hellish to repair. ‑ Iridescent 21:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Kinda off-topic non-admin comment I'll never understand why "Foo is a village in Bar" sub-stubs are allowed to survive more than a few hours. In early 2013, I created a microstub on the guy who commissioned Japan's best-known poetry anthology and the page was PRODded (and promptly deleted) weeks later by a sock of a user who was site-banned for harassing me; when I emailed an admin who helped me prevent another related incident, he essentially said "Yeah, but that one was so short that I would have deleted it myself if I came across it with a PROD tag and didn't know either you or him". Since then I've been frankly terrified of mainspacing one-sentence articles (almost all my articles stay in my user space until they're more than 100 words long), and I will never know why this never seemed to happen to anyone but me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. If memory serves someone (Arbcom?) at some point in the past (possibly before I came on board) ruled that any populated place on the earth was a legitimate subject for an article, even if a sub-stub, and whammo! Wikipedia became a gazetteer. Of course, one can also ask if we really need articles on every Pokemon character, but Gnu forbid we start paddling up that stream. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Not since at least 2007 have we had an article on every Pokemon... The history of the related navbox should be illustrative. --Izno (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Iridescent and would be somewhat surprised if this is a long term issue, though we do need to look. Any obvious copyvios need to be dealt with but I also believe in a statute of limitations. Unless there is evidence of recent abuse I would oppose any sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a sanctions issue so much as a cleanup issue. I agree with Iri that it is much better to have him cooperating (and I'll take his word on it that it is unlikely that Blofield had recent copyvios), but the cheer scale of the cleanup, even if limited to a few years, would be pretty large (and difficult to cleanup because figuring out who copied whom at this point will be a PITA with all the mirrors and copying from us), even if it wasn't 96,000. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep, you're probably the one who's worked most closely with him; are you aware of any recent issues, and can you see if you can get hold of him to see if he remembers when he stopped cut-and-pasting? If this is only a few of his very early edits we're talking about, it makes things much easier; I've no desire at all to wade through even 10,000 articles looking for potential copyright violations, especially given that many of the sources won't even be in English to start with. ‑ Iridescent 22:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

While this is concerning, he's been editing for nearly 12 years and the examples cited so far are over a decade old - not that it's a excuse, but many will have been edited somewhat since then, some significantly, so they are no longer problematic. Are there any recent examples of copyvio articles? Aiken D 22:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but many will have been edited somewhat since then isn't how it works. A copyvio is a copyvio even if none of the original text remains; if anything, that makes it more difficult, as it means we have to go through the history revision-by-revision revdeleting those that are problematic. Provided the violating text is present in the history, then as far as the law is concerned we're hosting it. ‑ Iridescent 22:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Good luck to whoever takes that on that responsibility, sounds like a mammoth task. Aiken D 22:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent and Fram: I've done a spot check through May 2016, which is where I first start running into the potential for close paraphrase (and ignore the percentages in the earwig, I only use it to identify potentially problematic text and compare it against the source manually).

In Cynthia Bouron he wrote She filed a paternity suit against Cary Grant, claiming that he was the father of her daughter. The LA Times wrote In 1970, Milosevic's ex-wife, Cynthia Bouron, alias Samantha Lou Bouron, brought a paternity suit against Cary Grant, saying that he was the father of her daughter Stephanie Andrea. Whether or not that is close enough to be a violation of our policies is the question (I am leaning yes, but I'm also pretty strict on these things). I don't see much else during that time period, so it could be a one off, but I am also just randomly spot checking. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like plagiarism, just a couple of words changed. Aiken D 22:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if there are significant problems in recent articles. I've dealt with Dr. Blofeld a fair amount and am also active in cleaning up copyright problems (the two are unrelated!). I feel like I noticed one old article ages ago that had some close paraphrasing issues, but I never noticed any pattern of copying in anything recent (or anything old, for that matter). And I don't think that Cary Grant sentence is remotely concerning. There are not that many ways a simple factual sentence like that could be written. Maybe if it was a whole paragraph like that, but a single sentence?.... I have zero heartburn over the matter. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it is a bit more than just factual with little ways to paraphrase in that sentence, so I would consider it in need of fixing, but part of the reason I posted that was that in my estimation there really hasn't been that much (if any) recent issues. If that was a one off, it suggests that our focus should be on the earlier stuff, as I haven't found anymore through my 2015 spot check. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

To the extent there is a problem involving decade-old contributions to articles with hundreds of revisions since, it may frankly not be fixable. I'm not sure what the implications of that may be—though they are probably less than some people might fear, if we've never had a complaint in all these years from an actual copyright-holder—but I thought I'd flavor the discussion with a tinge of stark realism. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but the trouble is that now we know there's a potential problem, all the duty-of-care and precautionary-principle stuff kicks in. (I agree entirely with Calliopejen1 about the Cary Grant sentence, FWIW. It's not plagiarism if it's a simple straightforward statement of fact and there's no other way to word it, any more than it's plagiarism that most biographies start with "Name was born in Place in Year".) ‑ Iridescent 23:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In principle you are correct, but in the realm of practicality, a review of all those articles and revisions simply won't happen. If we try to undertake one, the common experience is that we'll wind up with a big project in which people lose interest after a week. So logically, we need to proceed on the basis of some spot-checking of the most likely problems and work from there. Reaction to any copyvios that are found also needs to be proportionate; I don't feel the need to revdelete 1000 revisions of a page that used to have two infringing sentences in it, for example. The community simply is not going to drop everything else it is doing to address the problem described here, assuming it is a problem, and as a practical matter we can't expect it to try, no matter how fully we try to respect rightsholders' legal and ethical rights. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, per above, if there is to be anything done here, it should focus on the ones most likely to be of issue, which does not appear to be recent. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, I entirely agree—per my comments above it would be wholly impractical to carry out a selective revision deletion on Paris (to which Blofeld has over 500 edits) even if it were found he'd copied the whole thing verbatim. More realistically, we'll end up doing a Sander v Ginkel and bulk-deleting those articles created before a certain time, to which there have been no substantive edits by anyone else, after a grace period in which anyone interested in cross-checking them against sources can do so. ("Created by Dr. Blofeld" AND "no sources cited at the time of creation" AND "at least 30% of the original text remains" AND "nobody volunteers to repair it after it's been tagged as potentially problematic for a month" would seem to be an obvious metric to catch most of them if this does turn out to be a problem rather than a one-off.) ‑ Iridescent 23:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with much of the above. There are two conflicting issues here. One is the ideal, i.e. what we should be doing to deal with what may, or may not be a significant problem. The other is the practical reality. Which is to say what are we realistically able to do? My guess is that we are going to just have to dive in and see how deep the water is and go from there. Copyvio is not my forte but I am willing to help if anyone wants to point me in a given direction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I reiterate that it would make sense to wait until Dr. B has had a chance to respond, before any detailed discussion of mechanisms? It's eminently likely that he'll say something along the lines of "There was a brief period when I didn't understand sourcing and plagiarism requirements" and be able to give us at least rough dates, and it will make things much easier if we know either that this is a case of a just a couple of articles, or a systemic problem. ‑ Iridescent 23:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately not possible, they've announced themself as retired. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

As to that, please see Iridescent's first contribution near the top of the thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Is that what? Four in the past month? If someone else is keeping count, please notify so I won't have to try to keep count. It's tedious. GMG^talk 00:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

If there's no practical consequence for article content, and the concern is legal liability for WMF, why not let WMF handle it (or not) as they see fit? Then we can all go back to doing things that matter to our readers. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I can help, if someone makes a way to systematically help. GMG^talk 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Let me know how I can help. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• I contacted Dr. Blofeld via e-mail, and told them about the situation. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Sure, I'll reach out to Dr. Blofeld but for the record, I find it hard to believe that he was a systematic copyright violater. This is an editor with more DYKs, GAs, and FAs under his belt than most of us, meaning his work has been reviewed by various people over a long period of time. Also, just FYI, there's a retired sign on his userpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Digging through 10 year old revisions for potential copyvio is a lot more work and less productive than going to Category:Stale_userspace_drafts where every third page or so is likely copyvio. Legacypac (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Disgusted that Fram has raised this in this manner. Like most people in the old days it took some time before I even knew about the copyright guidelines or how to source or research. Some of my very earliest articles may contain vios, we're talking 2006, 12 years ago. I remember that article and thinking it was legit, Finnish Google translate was atrocious at the time as well. Given that over the years I've been tough on copyright myself and have warned many people against copying text the idea that I'm a Sanders v Ginkel type and suddenly we need to delete all 96,000 articles out of panic is ridiculous. I prefer to use multiple sources and write my own text anyway. I know Fram has some deep rooted insecurities, particularly with authority, but be my guest Fram and go through all 96,000 articles as you obviously have nothing better to do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, if it’s just potentially your early articles with some problems, it’s not as big of an issue as first thought. Aiken D 10:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone inform Dr. Blofeld about our NPA policy? "Finnish Google translate" has nothing to do with taking a 10K text in English and copying it wholesale into enwiki, nor with copying text from the BBC or from a 1992 book. "Some of my very earliest articles may contain vios", no, many of your early articles contain copyvios. When you learned afterwards that this wasn't allowed, you should have cleaned them up, not simply ignored the problem. Fram (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

In December 2009, he created Filipe La Féria. Too bad that it's an unattributed translation of the Portuguese article at the time[18]. So this extends the problematic articles at least from 2006 to 2009 already... Fram (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Honestly unless we have evidence that this problem continued for a substantial fraction of Blofeld's editing career then deleting 96,000 articles would be a massive overreaction. Aside from the unattributed translation all the examples pointed to so far are within the first year of Blofeld's editing career. It isn't terribly surprising that a new editor screwed up and it doesn't mean he did the same thing for years afterwards. Sure, we should do some spotchecks on more recent contributions, but unless they turn up evidence of a significant problem people need to stop panicking. (And no, failing to attribute a translation in 2009 is not a significant problem.) Hut 8.5 11:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I dug around a bit, and I think (based on this) that the author of the material copied from here for the original version of Olavi Paavolainen, that the author is a Petri Liukkonen. It seems that the material he wrote may have been released under a CC license, see Template:Books and Writers. Maybe others with more time can follow up that aspect of this - there has been clear copying, but it is possible that some of it was either legitimate or not attributed properly. See also User:GreenC/kirjasto.sci.fi and I will ping User:GreenC and leave a note on their talk page to see what light they can shed on this. Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Gathering hard information

Dr. Blofeld, please can you help us built a list of which articles you're aware of that are likely to need work to clean-up. —Sladen (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC) (ie. without judgement, just for getting hard information that we can collectively begin to work with).

Ban appeal by Twitbookspacetube

An appeal request copied from User talk:Twitbookspacetube's talk page:

First and foremost, to the entire community. I was hot-headed and blatantly irresponsible in creating this account in the first place, blatantly ignoring my restrictions which, at the time, I felt to be unjust. While things could have been handled better, I am willing to take at least 99.9% of the blame here. I hope that you can forgive me and trust that I shall never waste your time on this level again.

Second, To the administrators. I got frustrated by what I saw as action to protect your own. You got frustrated because you know that no such action has ever been taken and couldn't understand why I saw things as I did.

Third, To arbcom. I shouldn't have filed that spurious case against winhunter. While my first case was largely successful in it's intent, the second was not even remotely the same situation and not even worth your time. As an added bonus, I was labelled a troll by Opabinia regalis in this edit which I fully accept because, at that time, I had become the very type of person I despise. I promise that it won't happen again.

I feel that I have sincerely learned my lesson. I hope that you can forgive me and see fit to remove the community ban I have been placed under. Twitbookspacetube 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I realise that I am under a community ban so I would like someone stalking this talk page to copy and paste these to the admin noticeboard for community discussion.

Again, sorry! Twitbookspacetube 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This user was banned in August 2017. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• There's a crucial detail missing from the appeal. How are you going to be a benefit to the encyclopaedia as an editor if the ban is lifted? Mr rnddude (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I will primarily edit minor topics where little conflict exists - checking facts, finding sources, that sort of thing. I have made some sparodic contributions on Simple English Wikipedia, you can use those as an example of the kind of productivity I intend to maintain here. Twitbookspacetube 06:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC) copied from usertalk by power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose You've lied repeatedly and have done nothing to show you can be trusted. A handful of edits elsewhere demonstrates nothing. Further, you have failed to speak to the many reasons you were banned initially, including this lovely message. Nihlus 07:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  Additionally, I oppose any lifting of his restrictions. If he were to be unblocked, there need to be more restrictions. Nihlus 10:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional Support after discussing on IRC, I feel like he's genuinely trying to contribute, but doesn't have the slightest idea how to set up restrictions that will allow him to do so without being disruptive. I propose:
  • A ban from all pages in the Wikipedia namespace, with the exceptions of reports at WP:AIV and discussions/appeals of his own restrictions.
  • A topic ban from all American politics articles.
  • One account limitation.
  • These three restrictions are indefinite, and appealable after 6 months.
  • All other previous restrictions are lifted.

This may let him engage in productive anti-vandalism activities without causing drama. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments last time. Barts1a isn't some good-faith editor who just needs the chance to prove himself, he's a long-term troll whose various accounts wasted huge amounts of other peoples' time owing to his hobby of loitering on talkpages trying to provoke fights, and then lashing out when challenged. If we do unblock him, I'd strongly oppose lifting any of the restrictions, which were there for the express purpose of preventing him from dragging other people into timesink debates and from abusing the undo function to rack up his edit count blindly reverting edits at high speed regardless of their validity. At minimum I'd expect a total ban from AN and ANI and from all pages relating to dispute resolution, strictly-applied 1RR everywhere else, and a no-exceptions restriction to a single account; I'd be inclined to retain is topic banned from all contentious articles and their talk pages at minumum from his existing restrictions as well (the restriction on Huggle is moot, as that requires rollback and no admin is ever going to grant that). User:Worm That Turned, you were his mentor way-back-when, do you have any thoughts on this? ‑ Iridescent 10:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)